Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 7:34 am Godelian is not a true Muslim so his foundation is not credible.

As a self-avowed kafir, you are not in a position to pronounce anybody else's takfir.
You are a laughable individual.

double posting

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:15 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 7:34 am Godelian is not a true Muslim so his foundation is not credible.

As a self-avowed kafir, you are not in a position to pronounce anybody else's takfir.
You are a laughable individual.

Whether one is a true good Muslim is not according to my opinions but rather based on Allah's definition within the 6236 verses of the Quran sent by God directly to his messenger via angel Gabriel.

Quranism (Arabic: القرآنية, romanized: al-Qurʾāniyya) is an Islamic movement that holds the belief that the Quran is the only valid source of religious belief, guidance, and law in Islam. Quranists believe that the Quran is clear, complete, and that it can be fully understood without recourse to the hadith and sunnah. Therefore, they use the Quran itself to interpret the Quran, an exegetical principle known as tafsir al-Qur'an bi al-Qur'an.

In matters of faith, jurisprudence, and legislation, Quranists differ from Sunnis, who consider the hadith, scholarly opinions, opinions attributed to the sahaba, ijma and qiyas, and Islam's legislative authority in matters of law and creed in addition to the Quran.[1][2]
Hadith-espousing sects of Islam differ with one another over which hadith they view as reliable, but their hadith collections are mostly overlapping.[3] In contrast, Quranists do not advance another corpus of assertedly authoritative hadith; rather, they criticize hadith altogether and do not recognize any as authoritative.[4][5][6]
Whereas hadith-followers believe that obedience to the Islamic prophet Muhammad entails obedience to hadiths, Quranists believe that obedience to Muhammad means obedience to the Qur'an.[7][8]
This methodological difference has led to considerable divergence between Quranists, and both Sunnis and Shias in matters of theology and law as well as the understanding of the Quran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

The basis for True Muslim:
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_ ... 1153).html
Why Muslims should follow the Quran, all the Quran, and nothing but the Quran

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:48 am Whether one is a true good Muslim is not according to my opinions but ...

Takfir ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir ) is a legal procedure that can only be carried out by the ulema.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir
Takfir (Arabic: تَكْفِير, romanized: takfīr) is an Arabic and Islamic term which denotes excommunication from Islam of one Muslim by another, i.e. accusing another Muslim of being an apostate.

The very first requirement to pronounce takfir, is to be a Muslim yourself.
You are not. You are a self-avowed kafir (unbeliever).

ChatGPT: Who can pronounce takfir?

The act of pronouncing takfir—declaring someone to be a non-believer (kafir) in Islam—is a highly sensitive and serious matter. In Islamic tradition, the authority to make such a declaration is not something taken lightly, and there are stringent conditions for its use.

Who Can Pronounce Takfir?

Qualified Islamic Scholars (Ulema):
Only well-versed scholars with a deep understanding of Islamic theology, jurisprudence (fiqh), and the Quran and Hadith are generally considered capable of making a judgment of takfir.
These scholars must adhere to strict criteria, ensuring that their ruling is based on clear evidence and not personal or political motivations.

Established Religious Institutions:
In many Islamic countries, official bodies such as fatwa councils or religious courts may be the ones to issue such declarations, if necessary.

Conclusion

Takfir is not something that individuals or unqualified people should pronounce. It is a matter requiring deep knowledge, caution, and adherence to Islamic principles. In practice, the vast majority of Muslims leave such matters to qualified scholars or refrain from it altogether.

Pronouncing takfir is something that even another Muslim is not allowed to do, let alone, a self-avowed kafir. ChatGPT knows a lot more about Islam than you do. You just keep saying complete nonsense.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 9:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:48 am Whether one is a true good Muslim is not according to my opinions but ...

Takfir ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir ) is a legal procedure that can only be carried out by the ulema.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir
Takfir (Arabic: تَكْفِير, romanized: takfīr) is an Arabic and Islamic term which denotes excommunication from Islam of one Muslim by another, i.e. accusing another Muslim of being an apostate.

The very first requirement to pronounce takfir, is to be a Muslim yourself.
You are not. You are a self-avowed kafir (unbeliever).

ChatGPT: Who can pronounce takfir?

The act of pronouncing takfir—declaring someone to be a non-believer (kafir) in Islam—is a highly sensitive and serious matter. In Islamic tradition, the authority to make such a declaration is not something taken lightly, and there are stringent conditions for its use.

Who Can Pronounce Takfir?

Qualified Islamic Scholars (Ulema):
Only well-versed scholars with a deep understanding of Islamic theology, jurisprudence (fiqh), and the Quran and Hadith are generally considered capable of making a judgment of takfir.
These scholars must adhere to strict criteria, ensuring that their ruling is based on clear evidence and not personal or political motivations.

Established Religious Institutions:
In many Islamic countries, official bodies such as fatwa councils or religious courts may be the ones to issue such declarations, if necessary.

Conclusion

Takfir is not something that individuals or unqualified people should pronounce. It is a matter requiring deep knowledge, caution, and adherence to Islamic principles. In practice, the vast majority of Muslims leave such matters to qualified scholars or refrain from it altogether.

Pronouncing takfir is something that even another Muslim is not allowed to do, let alone, a self-avowed kafir. ChatGPT knows a lot more about Islam than you do. You just keep saying complete nonsense.

You should not so ignorant to claim ChatGpt has absolute authority to dictate the truth. In addition, ChatGpt is programmed to be WOKE as far as Islam is concern.
ChatGpt once responded to me with 'regret' that it cannot go further than how it is programmed to respond with reference to Islam.

What is Islam is represented by the 6236 verses in the Quran.
I am very familiar with these 6236 verses of the Quran so I will claim I have reasonable knowledge of Islam above the average Muslims.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:15 am The basis for True Muslim:
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_ ... 1153).html
Why Muslims should follow the Quran, all the Quran, and nothing but the Quran

Wot?

To become even more stupid than an average idiot, and become a Muslim.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 11:53 am

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:15 am The basis for True Muslim:
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_ ... 1153).html
Why Muslims should follow the Quran, all the Quran, and nothing but the Quran

Wot?

To become even more stupid than an average idiot, and become a Muslim.

Hey, I did not write that. You are quoting Veritas, not me!
I have zero interest in figuring out what other people "should" be doing. Seriously, I don't give a flying fart.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 12:20 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 11:53 am

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 8:15 am The basis for True Muslim:
https://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_ ... 1153).html
Why Muslims should follow the Quran, all the Quran, and nothing but the Quran

Wot?

To become even more stupid than an average idiot, and become a Muslim.

Hey, I did not write that. You are quoting Veritas, not me!
I have zero interest in figuring out what other people "should" be doing. Seriously, I don't give a flying fart.

I apologise, for anyone reading the quote above was of Veritas NOT godelian..

godelian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2024 10:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Dec 24, 2024 4:38 pm That's the advantage of Christianity, that it is based upon a real life that changes through time and circumstances.

The lack of deductive closure is not considered an advantage in proof theory. On the contrary, it is considered a pretty much insurmountable problem. In fact, we generally avoid the use of theories that are not closed under logical consequence.

Cosmos is logical but the world of men is not logical.

The message of Jesus was God's grace to the world of men . Jesus is Cosmic Christ as the Gospel of John describes @ In the beginning was the word and the word was made flesh.Logos is Jesus.

godelian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 6:11 am For a starters, the legal traditions in the West are mostly based on Roman law, which is indeed staunchly rational. Next, the Torah is indeed the foundation of Jewish law, which is also rational, but which is largely rejected in Christianity.

Sorry...both statements are untrue. Are you ever going to check your facts before you declare them?

I have this impression you must be reading somebody else's bad argument, and reproducing it here. The problem with that, of course, is that when you read merely to disprove, what you can tend to do is to read only so far as to find something that seems, superficially, to offer an incentive or opportunity to disbelieve, and then rejoice too soon, and think you've made the point.

But actually, your informant, whomever he is, is just wrong. He has no interest in understanding the Christian view of the Law, so his conclusion is that we don't have one. Unfortunately, he just doesn't know how wrong he really is, and how well-developed and sophisticated the Christian understanding actually is. He seems mired in a crass legalism...a worship of laws, as if laws could make people good...which they have never done.

Take the passage from which he quoted to you, and you quoted to us, Galatians. If he'd read the book, he'd understand that there is a very good reason the Law (Torah) brings a curse; and it's that nobody succeeds in keeping it. Those who ever think they do are simply dropping the standard of the Law to the level they can accept, rather than meeting the demands of God's perfect moral law where it is. And the point, in Galatians, is that man needs salvation from what he is, before he can face the Law.

There is no moral theory in Christianity.

This is quite wrong. And I can prove that for a fact. It's just that the "moral theory" as you call it, is not one of legalism. For as the Bible says, "the Law makes nothing perfect." (Heb. 7:19) The purpose of the Law is not to make people good, as is claimed in Islam, but to expose to them their lack of goodness so that they will implore the mercy and favour of God, instead of imagining that they have already met the perfect standard of the law, when in fact they have not.

This is, indeed, a very different "moral theory" from that of Islam, but it is present in Judaism and abundantly evident in Christianity. And I think this is why you, or the person you're following, doesn't know that: he's looking for a simplistic one-to-one moral theory, in which commands issue in submission, and submission is mere physical capitulation to an authoritarian "magesterium" or Shura. In other words, he's looking for the Islamic moral theory, which is the one with which he's familiar, and not finding it, he's jumping to a very wild conclusion: namely, that there must not be one in Christianity.

But you might ask yourself this: how has the Christian world been able to structure a society, a legal system, a system of human rights, and so forth, in the complete absence (as your informant insists) of any functional moral theory at all? Of course, that's manifestly not the case. No society finds any structure at all, unless it has some moral theory upon which it can be structured. That much, at least, should be very obvious.

Moreover, in view of recent events, we might well ask, what is happening today to the Islamic moral theory? The belief that Sharia will make people good -- how is that working out right now?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 3:59 pm Moreover, in view of recent events, we might well ask, what is happening today to the Islamic moral theory? The belief that Sharia will make people good -- how is that working out right now?

It’s working out the way all man made laws work out.

Ever heard of the carrot and stick approach? That’s human law. It kinda works, actually.

Christianity Heaven and Hell. Kinda works, actually. Ring a ?

Fairy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 4:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 25, 2024 3:59 pm Moreover, in view of recent events, we might well ask, what is happening today to the Islamic moral theory? The belief that Sharia will make people good -- how is that working out right now?

It’s working out the way all man made laws work out.

Ever heard of the carrot and stick approach? That’s human law. It kinda works, actually.

I think you'll find it kinda doesn't. I know we all go to it, because we have kind of simple suppositions: but there are serious problems with that approach, and if we think for a minute, I think we'll see some of them.

And one of the problems with it is that people believe less in the stick than they do in the carrot: i.e., they think that they'll win, even if they stand to have a considerable loss if they don't. That's an old problem with legalism: everybody thinks they're an exception to the rule. They assume there will never be a cost for their misdeeds, because they can avoid it, or that God's not going to do anything about it. The carrot we get from disobedience remains attractive; the stick of judgment doesn't impress us nearly so much. That's how humans tend to think, of course.

A second is our human habit of putting the finger on the scales of justice, and tilting them (in our own assessment, of course, not in God's) in our own favour. We all think we're "pretty good" or "good enough," and don't really pay close attention to what the moral law requires of us. We're experts at extenuating ourselves, and sometimes also at noticing the minute failures of other people, using the same laws.

A third problem is this: the Law tells you how you ought to have behaved, but doesn't supply any means for you to do it, nor any remedy once you haven't. It just indicates where you've already messed up. And how, then, is knowing the Law that you've already broken going to help anybody?

So if God were relying on fear and rewards to get us to behave, it would raise two questions: 1. why would He expect something to work that has never worked from the dawn of time, and 2. why would the Supreme Being have any reason to be invested in the grudging compulsion of the mere actions of mere mortals who continue to have no particular love for Him? Why would God benefit, depend upon, or require from mere humans compliance or submission to cold, hard laws, in other words. It would be hard to say why He would even want that, let alone involve Himself with making it happen. What's it to God, whether I'm merely temporally 'good' or not?

Unless...and this is the big "unless"...that was never really what He wanted in the first place. What if Law was only an instrument in a single stage of a larger plan, and not the sum-and-total of the plan itself?

So let's play that out a bit: what if the whole purpose of the Law, just as is described in places like Romans and Galatians, was to lead us to recognize our own shortcomings, and then apply to God for rescue, forgiveness or salvation? And what if the story didn't stop there, either, but repentance was intended to lead us to a new life that no longer depended on our own ability to follow laws, but rather invited us to live gratefully and freely in the forgiveness of God, and thus to be joined in a new relationship with God, so as to be enabled by Him do what the Law gave us no power to do before?

In other words, what if the Bible is telling the truth?

Merry Christmas.

“In other words, what if the Bible is telling the truth?”

In other words…

I don't wanna talk
About things we've gone through
Though it's hurting me
Now it's history
I've played all my cards
And that's what you've done too
Nothing more to say
No more ace to play
The winner takes it all
The loser's standing small
Beside the victory
That's her destiny
I was in your arms
Thinking I belonged there
I figured it made sense
Building me a fence
Building me a home
Thinking I'd be strong there
But I was a fool
Playing by the rules
The gods may throw a dice
Their minds as cold as ice
And someone way down here
Loses someone dear
The winner takes it all (takes it all)
The loser has to fall (has to fall)
It's simple and it's plain (it's so plain)
Why should I complain? (Why complain?)
But tell me, does she kiss
Like I used to kiss you?
Does it feel the same
When she calls your name?
Somewhere deep inside
You must know I miss you
But what can I say?
Rules must be obeyed
The judges will decide (will decide)
The likes of me abide (me abide)
Spectators of the show (of the show)
Always staying low (staying low)
The game is on again (on again)
A lover or a friend (or a friend)
A big thing or a small (big or small)
The winner takes it all (takes it all)
I don't wanna talk
If it makes you feel sad
And I understand
You've come to shake my hand
I apologize
If it makes you feel bad
Seeing me so tense
No self-confidence
But you see
The winner takes it all
The winner takes it all
So the winner takes it all
And the loser has to fall
Throw the dice, cold as ice
Way down here, someone dear
Takes it all, has to fall
And it's plain, why complain?

Arab News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5KCT0fBsAw

@amychuah4430
7 months ago
Why is this allowed? UK is a Christian country.

@stephenslawson5373
4 months ago
Nope this should not be allowed sorry very very disrespectful


@mdhelel59
8 months ago
❤❤❤

Only three comments.....

Looks like Islam is on a winning streak.

Please don't turn this into another thread where all the old invalids getting ready to die get out their bibles and try to console each other that they're all going to heaven when they do.